Payment Innovation in Emergency Care: A Case for Global Clinician Budgets.

The fee-for-service funding model for US emergency department (ED) clinician groups is increasingly fragile. Traditional fee-for-service payment systems offer no financial incentives to improve quality, address population health, or make value-based clinical decisions. Fee-for-service also does not support maintaining ED capacity to handle peak demand periods. In fee-for-service, clinicians rely heavily on cross-subsidization, where high reimbursement from commercial payors offsets low reimbursement from government payors and the uninsured. Although fee-for-service survived decades of steady cuts in government reimbursement rates, it is increasingly strained because of visit volatility and the effects of the No Surprises Act, which is driving down commercial reimbursement. Financial pressures on ED clinician groups and higher hospital boarding and clinical workloads are increasing workforce attrition. Here, we propose an alternative model to address some of these fundamental issues: an all-payer-funded, voluntary global budget for ED clinician services. If designed and implemented effectively, the model could support robust clinician staffing over the long term, ensure stability in clinical workload, and potentially improve equity in payments. The model could also be combined with population health programs (eg, pre-ED and post-ED telehealth, frequent ED use programs, and other innovations), offering significant payer returns and addressing quality and value. A linked program could also change hospital incentives that contribute to boarding. Strategies exist to test and refine ED clinician global budgets through existing government programs in Maryland and potentially through state-level legislation as a precursor to broader adoption.

Emergency Department Volume, Severity, and Crowding Since the Onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe emergency department (ED) visit volume, illness severity, and crowding metrics from the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic through mid-2022. METHODS: We tabulated monthly data from 14 million ED visits on ED volumes and measures of illness severity and crowding from March 2020 through August 2022 compared with the same months in 2019 in 111 EDs staffed by a national ED practice group in 18 states. RESULTS: Average monthly ED volumes fell in the early pandemic, partially recovered in 2022, but remained below 2019 levels (915 per ED in 2019 to 826.6 in 2022 for admitted patients; 3,026.9 to 2,478.5 for discharged patients). The proportion of visits assessed as critical care increased from 7.9% in 2019 to 11.0% in 2022, whereas the number of visits decreased (318,802 to 264,350). Visits billed as 99285 (the highest-acuity Evaluation and Management code for noncritical care visits) increased from 35.4% of visits in 2019 to 40.0% in 2022, whereas the number of visits decreased (1,434,454 to 952,422). Median and median of 90th percentile length of stay for admitted patients rose 32% (5.2 to 6.9 hours) and 47% (11.7 to 17.4 hours) in 2022 versus 2019. Patients leaving without treatment rose 86% (2.9% to 5.4%). For admitted psychiatric patients, the 90th percentile length of stay increased from 20 hours to more than 1 day. CONCLUSION: ED visit volumes fell early in the pandemic and have only partly recovered. Despite lower volumes, ED crowding has increased. This issue is magnified in psychiatric patients.

The Cost Shifting Economics of United States Emergency Department Professional Services (2016-2019).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We estimate the economics of US emergency department (ED) professional services, which is increasingly under strain given the longstanding effect of unreimbursed care, and falling Medicare and commercial payments. METHODS: We used data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), Medicare, Medicaid, Health Care Cost Institute, and surveys to estimate national ED clinician revenue and costs from 2016 to 2019. We compare annual revenue and cost for each payor and calculate foregone revenue, the amount clinicians may have collected had uninsured patients had either Medicaid or commercial insurance. RESULTS: In 576.5 million ED visits (2016 to 2019), 12% were uninsured, 24% were Medicare-insured, 32% Medicaid-insured, 28% were commercially insured, and 4% had another insurance source. Annual ED clinician revenue averaged $23.5 billion versus costs of $22.5 billion. In 2019, ED visits covered by commercial insurance generated $14.3 billion in revenues and cost $6.5 billion. Medicare visits generated $5.3 billion and cost $5.7 billion; Medicaid visits generated $3.3 billion and cost $7 billion. Uninsured ED visits generated $0.5 billion and cost $2.9 billion. The average annual foregone revenue for ED clinicians to treat the uninsured was $2.7 billion. CONCLUSION: Large cost-shifting from commercial insurance cross-subsidizes ED professional services for other patients. This includes the Medicaid-insured, Medicare-insured, and uninsured, all of whom incur ED professional service costs that substantially exceed their revenue. Foregone revenue for treating the uninsured relative to what may have been collected if patients had health insurance is substantial.

Divergent Trends in Emergency Department Presentations Amid the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Chicago, Illinois.

Excess deaths during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been largely attributed to cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, patterns in CVD hospitalizations after the first surge of the pandemic have not well-documented. Our brief report, examining trends in health care avoidance documents that CVD hospitalizations decreased in Chicago before significant burden of COVID-19 cases or deaths and normalized during the first COVID-19 surge. These data may help to inform health care systems responses in the coming months while mobilizing vaccinations to the population at large.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Economics of United States Emergency Care.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the economics of emergency department care (ED). METHODS: We conducted an observational study of 136 EDs from January 2019 to September 2020, using 2020-to-2019 3-week moving ratios for ED visits, complexity, revenue, and staffing expenses. We tabulated 2020-to-2019 staffing ratios and calculated hour and full-time-equivalent changes. RESULTS: Following the COVID-19 pandemic's onset, geriatric (age ≥65), adult (age 18 to 64), and pediatric (age <18) ED visits declined by 43%, 40%, and 73%, respectively, compared to 2019 visits and rose thereafter but remained below 2019 levels through September. Relative value units per visit rose by 8%, 9%, and 18%, respectively, compared to 2019, while ED admission rates rose by 32%. Both fell subsequently but remained above 2019 levels through September. Revenues dropped sharply early in the pandemic and rose gradually but remained below 2019 levels. In medium and large EDs, staffing and expenses were lowered with a lag, largely compensating for lower revenue at these sites, and barely at freestanding EDs. Staffing and expense reductions could not match revenue losses in smaller EDs. During the pandemic, emergency physician and advanced practice provider clinical hours and compensation fell 15% and 27%, respectively, corresponding to 174 lost physician and 193 lost advanced practice provider full-time-equivalent positions. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely impacted the economics of ED care, with large drops in overall and, in particular, low-acuity ED visits, necessitating reductions in clinical hours. Staffing cutbacks could not match reduced revenue at small EDs with minimum emergency physician coverage requirements.

Characterizing pediatric emergency department visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: We determine how pediatric emergency department (ED) visits changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large sample of U.S. EDs. METHODS: Using retrospective data from January-June 2020, compared to a similar 2019 period, we calculated weekly 2020-2019 ratios of Non-COVID-19 ED visits for adults and children (age 18 years or less) by age range. Outcomes were pediatric ED visit rates before and after the onset of pandemic, by age, disposition, and diagnosis. RESULTS: We included data from 2,213,828 visits to 144 EDs and 4 urgent care centers in 18 U.S. states, including 7 EDs in children's hospitals. During the pandemic period, adult non-COVID-19 visits declined to 60% of 2019 volumes and then partially recovered but remained below 2019 levels through June 2020. Pediatric visits declined even more sharply, with peak declines through the week of April 15 of 74% for children age < 10 years and 67% for 14-17 year. Visits recovered by June to 72% for children age 14-17, but to only 50% of 2019 levels for children < age 10 years. Declines were seen across all ED types and locations, and across all diagnoses, with an especially sharp decline in non-COVID-19 communicable diseases. During the pandemic period, there was 22% decline in common serious pediatric conditions, including appendicitis. CONCLUSION: Pediatric ED visits fell more sharply than adult ED visits during the COVID-19 pandemic, and remained depressed through June 2020, especially for younger children. Declines were also seen for serious conditions, suggesting that parents may have avoided necessary care for their children.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department visits for serious cardiovascular conditions.

OBJECTIVE: We examine how emergency department (ED) visits for serious cardiovascular conditions evolved in the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic over January-October 2020, compared to 2019, in a large sample of U.S. EDs. METHODS: We compared 2020 ED visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, relative to 2019 visits in 108 EDs in 18 states in 115,716 adult ED visits with diagnoses for five serious cardiovascular conditions: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ischemic stroke (IS), hemorrhagic stroke (HS), and heart failure (HF). We calculated weekly ratios of ED visits in 2020 to visits in 2019 in the pre-pandemic (Jan 1-March 10), early-pandemic (March 11-April 21), and later-pandemic (April 22-October 31) periods. RESULTS: ED visit ratios show that NSTEMI, IS, and HF visits dropped to lows of 56%, 64%, and 61% of 2019 levels, respectively, in the early-pandemic and gradually returned to 2019 levels over the next several months. HS visits also dropped early pandemic period to 60% of 2019 levels, but quickly rebounded. We find mixed evidence on whether STEMI visits fell, relative to pre-pandemic rates. Total adult ED visits nadired at 57% of 2019 volume during the early-pandemic period and have only party recovered since, to approximately 84% of 2019 by the end of October 2020. CONCLUSION: We confirm prior studies that ED visits for serious cardiovascular conditions declined early in the COVID-19 pandemic for NSTEMI, IS, HS, and HF, but not for STEMI. Delays or non-receipt in ED care may have led to worse outcomes.

Emergency Physician Practice Changes After Being Named in a Malpractice Claim.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Malpractice fear is a commonly cited cause for defensive medicine, but it is unclear whether being named in a malpractice claim changes physician practice patterns. We study whether there are changes in commonly used measures of emergency physician practice after being named in a malpractice claim. METHODS: We performed a retrospective difference-in-differences study comparing practice patterns of emergency physicians named in a malpractice claim and unnamed matched controls working contemporaneously in the same emergency departments (EDs), using data from a national emergency medicine management group (59 EDs in 11 US states from 2010 to 2015). We studied aggregate measures of care intensity (hospital admission rate and relative value units/visit), studied care speed (relative value units/hour and discharged patients' length of stay), and assessed patient experience (monthly physician Press Ganey percentile rank). RESULTS: A total of 65 emergency physicians named in at least 1 malpractice claim and 140 matched controls met inclusion criteria. After the malpractice claim filing date, there were no significant changes in measures of care intensity or speed. However, named emergency physicians' patient experience scores improved immediately after the malpractice claim filing date and showed sustained improvements by 6.52 Press Ganey percentile ranks (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 12.38), with the increase most prominent among those involved in the 46 failure-to-diagnose claims (10.52; 95% confidence interval 3.72 to 17.32). CONCLUSION: We observed a temporal improvement in patient satisfaction scores for emergency physicians in this sample after their being named in a malpractice claim relative to matched controls. Measures of care intensity and speed did not significantly change.

Changes in Reimbursement to Emergency Physicians After Medicaid Expansion Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine the effect of Medicaid expansion on reimbursement for emergency physicians' professional services. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using data from a national emergency medicine group in a sample of 50 emergency departments (EDs) from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2015. We categorized facilities in 14 states into full-expansion (23), partial-expansion (17), and nonexpansion (10) categories based on pre-expansion Medicaid eligibility criteria for all adults. We used a difference-in-differences design to assess the effect of Medicaid expansion on provider reimbursement per visit. Secondary outcomes included reimbursement per relative value unit and relative value units per visit, both overall and by payer type, controlling for age, sex, billing codes, and health system relationship. RESULTS: We studied greater than 6.7 million ED visits during July 2012 to December 2015, 3.0 million pre-expansion and 3.7 million postexpansion. After adjusting for covariates, reimbursement per visit increased 6.3% (95% confidence interval 1.4% to 11.1%) in full-expansion relative to nonexpansion states and did not change significantly in partial-expansion versus nonexpansion states. Reimbursement per visit for commercial insurance increased 17.1% (95% confidence interval 9.9% to 24.2%) in full-expansion versus nonexpansion states. Reimbursement for self-pay visits increased 9.7% (95% confidence interval 3.7% to 15.7%) in full-expansion versus nonexpansion states. Changes in payments were driven by higher reimbursement per relative value unit; relative value units per visit declined slightly in full-expansion compared with nonexpansion states. CONCLUSION: In this sample, full Medicaid expansion increased payments for emergency physicians' professional services compared with reimbursement in nonexpansion states. Higher reimbursement was driven primarily by lower proportions of uninsured patients and increased reimbursement per visit for both commercially insured and self-pay patients in states with full Medicaid expansion.

Association Between State Medical Malpractice Environment and Surgical Quality and Cost in the United States.

CONTEXT: The US medical malpractice system is designed to deter negligence and encourage quality of care through threat of liability. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether state-level malpractice environment is associated with outcomes and costs of colorectal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of 116,977 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent colorectal surgery using administrative claims data. State-level malpractice risk was measured using mean general surgery malpractice insurance premiums; paid claims per surgeon; state tort reforms; and a composite measure. Associations between malpractice environment and postoperative outcomes and price-standardized Medicare payments were estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and generalized linear models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: thirty-day postoperative mortality; complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, acute renal failure, surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, any complication); readmission; total price-standardized Medicare payments for index hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge episode-of-care. RESULTS: Few associations between measures of state malpractice risk environment and outcomes were identified. However, analyses using the composite measure showed that patients treated in states with greatest malpractice risk were more likely than those in lowest risk states to experience any complication (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.22-1.41), pneumonia (OR: 1.36; 95%: CI, 1.16-1.60), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.22-1.70), venous thromboembolism (OR:2.11; 95% CI: 1.70-2.61), acute renal failure (OR: 1.34; 95% CI; 1.22-1.47), and sepsis (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.24-1.53; all P < 0.001). There were no consistent associations between malpractice environment and Medicare payments. CONCLUSIONS: There were no consistent associations between state-level malpractice risk and higher quality of care or Medicare payments for colorectal surgery.

Defining Incidental Versus Non-incidental COVID-19 Hospitalizations.

Background Rates of COVID-19 hospitalization are an important measure of the health system burden of severe COVID-19 disease and have been closely followed throughout the pandemic. The highly transmittable, but often less severe, Omicron COVID-19 variant has led to an increase in hospitalizations with incidental COVID-19 diagnoses where COVID-19 is not the primary reason for admission. There is a strong public health need for a measure that is implementable at low cost with standard electronic health record (EHR) datasets that can separate these incidental hospitalizations from non-incidental hospitalizations where COVID-19 is the primary cause or an important contributor. Two crude metrics are in common use. The first uses in-hospital administration of dexamethasone as a marker of non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. The second, used by the United States (US) CDC, relies on a limited set of COVID-19-related diagnoses (i.e., respiratory failure, pneumonia). Both measures likely undercount non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. We therefore developed an improved EHR-based measure that is better able to capture the full range of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of ED visit data from a national emergency medicine group from April 2020 to August 2023. We assessed the CDC approach, the dexamethasone-based measure, and alternative approaches that rely on co-diagnoses likely to be related to COVID-19, to determine the proportion of non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. Results Of the 153,325 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at 112 general EDs in 17 US states, and admitted or transferred, our preferred measure classified 108,243 (70.6%) as non-incidental, compared to 71,066 (46.3%) using the dexamethasone measure and 77,399 (50.5%) using the CDC measure. Conclusions Identifying non-incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations using ED administration of dexamethasone or the CDC measure provides substantially lower estimates than our preferred measure.

The deterrent effect of tort law: Evidence from medical malpractice reform.

We examine whether caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases affect in-hospital patient safety. We use Patient Safety Indicators - measures of adverse events - as proxies for safety. In difference-in-differences ("DiD") analyses of five states that adopt caps during 2003-2005, we find that multiple measures of non-fatal patient safety events worsen after cap adoption relative to control states. DiD inference can be unreliable with a small number of treated units. We therefore develop a randomization inference-based test for inference with few treated units but multiple correlated outcomes and confirm the robustness of our results with this nonparametric approach. We also provide evidence that the decline in patient safety is unlikely to be driven by patient selection.

How emergency department visits for substance use disorders have evolved during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Higher opioid overdoses and drug use have reportedly occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide evidence on how emergency department (ED) visits for substance use disorders (SUD) changed in the early pandemic period. METHODS: Using retrospective data from January-July 2020 compared to January-July 2019, we calculated weekly 2020/2019 visit ratios for opioid-related, alcohol-related, other drug-related disorders, and all non-COVID-19 visits. We assess how this ratio as well as overall visit numbers changed after the mid-March 2020 onset of general pandemic restrictions. RESULTS: In 4.5 million ED visits in 2020 and 2019 to 108 EDs in 18 U.S. states, SUD visits were higher in early 2020 compared to 2019. During the peak-pandemic restriction period (March 13-July 31), non-COVID-19, non-SUD visits fell by approximately 45% early on, and then partly recovered with an average decline of 33% relative to 2019 levels. Visits for opioid-related, alcohol-related, and other drug-related disorders also declined, although less sharply, with an average drop of 17%, which was similar across SUD types. The visit ratios for 2020/2019 partially or fully recovered later in our sample period, depending on SUD type, but did not exceed early-2020 levels. However, substantial variation occurred across SUD types and across states. SUD visit declines were most prominent in the 65+ age group, except for alcohol-related visits where trends were similar across ages. SUD visits arriving by ambulance declined less or increased relative to self-transport visits, and ED deaths were rare. CONCLUSIONS: The 2020/2019 ratios of SUD ED visits fell substantially early in the COVID-19 pandemic, yet less than non-SUD, non-COVID ED visits. SUD ED visit ratios partly or fully recovered to 2019 levels by early June 2020, but did not exceed early 2020 ratios.

The effect of number of healthcare visits on study sample selection in electronic health record data.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have addressed how to select a study sample when using electronic health record (EHR) data. OBJECTIVE: To examine how changing criterion for number of visits in EHR data required for inclusion in a study sample would impact one basic epidemiologic measure: estimates of disease period prevalence. METHODS: Year 2016 EHR data from three Midwestern health systems (Northwestern Medicine in Illinois, University of Iowa Health Care, and Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin, all regional tertiary health care systems including hospitals and clinics) was used to examine how alternate definitions of the study sample, based on number of healthcare visits in one year, affected measures of disease period prevalence. In 2016, each of these health systems saw between 160,000 and 420,000 unique patients. Curated collections of ICD-9, ICD-10, and SNOMED codes (from CMS-approved electronic clinical quality measures) were used to define three diseases: acute myocardial infarction, asthma, and diabetic nephropathy). RESULTS: Across all health systems, increasing the minimum required number of visits to be included in the study sample monotonically increased crude period prevalence estimates. The rate at which prevalence estimates increased with number of visits varied across sites and across diseases. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to providing thorough descriptions of case definitions, when using EHR data authors must carefully describe how a study sample is identified and report data for a range of sample definitions, including minimum number of visits, so that others can assess the sensitivity of reported results to sample definition in EHR data.

A Comparison of Care Delivered in Hospital-based and Freestanding Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVE: We compare case mix, hospitalization rates, length of stay (LOS), and resource use in independent freestanding emergency departments (FSEDs) and hospital-based emergency departments (H-EDs). METHODS: Data from 74 FSEDs (2013-2015) in Texas and Colorado were compared to H-ED data from the 2013-2014 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. In the unrestricted sample, large differences in visit characteristics (e.g., payer and case mix) were found between patients that use FSEDs compared to H-EDs. Therefore, we restricted our analysis to patients commonly treated in both settings (<65 years, privately insured, nonambulance) and used inverse propensity score weighting (IPW) to balance the two settings on observable patient characteristics. We then compared ED LOS and as well as hospital admission rates and resource utilization rates in the IPW-weighted samples. RESULTS: Before balancing, FSEDs saw more young adults (age 25-44) and fewer older adults (age 45-64) than H-EDs. FSED patients had fewer comorbidities, more injuries and respiratory infections, and fewer diagnoses of chest or abdominal pain. In balanced samples, LOS for FSED visits was 46% shorter (60 minutes) than H-ED patients. Hospital admission rates were 37% lower overall (95% confidence interval = -51% to -23%) in FSEDs and varied considerably by primary discharge diagnosis. X-ray and electrocardiogram use was significantly lower at FSEDs while others measures of resource utilization were similar (ultrasound, computed tomography scans, and laboratory tests). CONCLUSION: In this sample of FSEDs, a greater proportion of younger patients with fewer comorbidities and more injuries and respiratory system diseases were evaluated, and almost all patients had private health insurance. When restricted to < 65 years, privately insured, and nonambulance patients in both samples, LOS was considerably shorter and hospital admission rates lower at FSEDs, as well as the use of some diagnostic testing. This study is limited as diagnoses codes may not fully capture severity and patients who perceived greater need of hospital admission may have chosen a H-ED over FSEDs.

Development of a composite measure of state-level malpractice environment.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a composite measure of state-level malpractice environment. DATA SOURCES: Public use data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, Medical Liability Monitor, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Bar Association. STUDY DESIGN: Principal component analysis of state-level indicators (paid claims rate, malpractice premiums, lawyers per capita, average award size, and malpractice laws), with indirect validation of the composite using receiver-operating characteristic curves to determine how accurately the composite could identify states with high-tort activity and costs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A single composite accounted for over 73 percent of total variance in the seven indicators and demonstrated reasonable criterion validity. CONCLUSION: An empirical composite measure of state-level malpractice risk may offer advantages over single indicators in measuring overall risk and may facilitate cross-state comparisons of malpractice environments.